Foundation for Exxcellence in Women's Health Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
830417022
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Dallas, TX, USA
Phone
2147217501
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$438,779
Expenses
$765,214
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • VIVIAN E VON GRUENIGEN MD (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • KENNETH H KIM MD (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFFREY O NATIONS (CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFIC): $332,002 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The foundation for exxcellence in women's health is dedicated to improving the quality of women's health. We will be a powerful force for change in women's health, driving positive action across key issues.

What it reported doing in 2019

Exxcellence in clinical research course: the foundation for exxcellence in women's health is pleased to offer exxcellence in clinical research. This is the same highly renowned course in research methods and evidencebased medicine taught since 1987 by the expert and engaging team of drs. David grimes and kenneth schulz. The sixday course is offered for current ob/gyn fellows and ob/gyn junior faculty. Residents are not eligible.instructors: david grimes m.d. Facog, facpmkenneth schulz, phd, mbathe course curriculum provides an intensive introduction to epidemiology, research methods and data analysis. In order to maintain an interactive seminar format, the number of participants is limited to 28 per course. Because the number of applications exceeds the number of available slots, participants will be chosen by random number table.the "exxcellence in clinical research" program was discontinued in 2019. Sasgog expressed an interest in continuing the program on their own and requested a grant to cover some of the costs associated with the redesign and reintroduction of the program. A restricted grant was awarded in the amount of $20,000. At thetime of the program cancellation, contracts were in place with hotels for the previously scheduled 2019 and 2020 courses. Each contract had a termination provision in it that required the payment of a penalty, which was paid. These costs were recorded as a cost of goods sold for the projects.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 59% for direct work, and 41% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 2
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 47%; rating input score 47
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -74.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 43.4%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.2% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.3% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 47% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $360K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $332K · 12 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.